For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
AFBooks responding to Interested Party – “Buddhism is man-centered while biblical faith is God-centered. Buddhism is atheistic, biblical faith is theistic. Notice I do not point to any tradition. Traditions do not have authority over biblical faith. Buddhism does not believe in the biblical view of sin. Buddhism does not have God-centered redemption. Buddhism does not have any semblance to biblical eschatology. Show me the ‘overlap,’ then, to use your word in each theology. You won’t find it. Do not point to a tradition but to biblical faith.”
“I and the Father are One.”
“Judge not lest you be judged.”
“Love God with all you heart, mind and soul and your neighbour as your self.”
This is Dharma.
The individual blinded by ego, entangled in the web of karmic inertia is the essence of samsara. (read as fallen from grace)
The atheism of Buddhism simply acknowledges that the Entirety of God leaves no room for other. (read there is only God. So full it is empty. Shunyata. i.e. The existence of God is moot in the best possible way.)
AFBooks responding to Robert Eckert – “These were not biblical practices, so they have no relevance to biblical faith.”
Who died and made “biblical faith” God?
AFBooks – “Only the biblical faith is unique from all the rest in that it makes the distinction between the Creator and creation and that God is totally distinct and separate from His creation. “
Except that Jesus shows (by his incarnation) that this is not True.
The Buddha by his awakening, shows us that this is not True.
The god that you describe would be one among others.
If creation can exist outside of a god, then that god casts a shadow. Is that the “evil” that you refer to?
Just what is your investment in this tangle of proprietary nonsense?
AFBooks – “You have not read the Bible yet. When you do, then come back and we can have a reasonable discussion rather than you spewing out all kinds of nonsense.”
It should be obvious (but in your case is not) that going directly to the Source would be indicated. Rather than secondary sources.
Muzi Cindi – “You seem adamant to make yourself right and others wrong!”
AKBooks – “Again, that is your judgment and personal assault on the messenger without addressing what is said and is not one [sic] on the merits.”
No, actually Muzi Cindi was expressing a reasonable impression of your character. This based on conduct and attitude abundantly illustrated in this “discussion”.
Not assaulting THE self proclaimed “messenger”.
AKBooks – “yawn”
Thank you for the confirmation then. And I’ll leave you to your studies. (or the tending of your camels as it were.)